The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. WjBscribe 03:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vermont Street, San Francisco[edit]

Vermont Street, San Francisco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article really stretches the notion of "notability". Why not have an article for every damn street in the city while we're at it? ILike2BeAnonymous 02:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I wonder how many Frisco streets have those Lombard-esque curves? I agree that Vermont Street doesn't merit its own article, but if there are only a couple of those types of streets, then a mention of Vermont Street in the Lombard Street article, might be in order, thus making a merge more appropriate than a straight delete. Mwelch 02:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note on comment: It already is mentioned in the Lombard Street article. I'm saying this street doesn't merit its own article. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, although not as famous as Lombard, Vermont has long been considered "crookeder" than Lombard or at least a rival for the "crookedest street in the world" moniker. It might be an analogue to indie cred, but I think the article is notable when there are [100+ Google Books results] and media mentions of Vermont as a destination in its own right. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Lombard street ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep After looking at the article I think this is notable. I remember when I went to San Fransisco I saw this street and I was like "OMG these liberals aren't straight, and they can't build straight streets either." --Evergreens78 05:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the street I saw was actually Lombard, but whatever. --Evergreens78 05:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung's sources and argument. --Oakshade 06:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Dhartung and I know the Linenthal book provides more info on history. It gets maligned in many of those articles as the poor cousin of Lombard, but you can think of it as the "up and coming crookedest street"! --RosinDebow 12:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Well fan my brow, a street with chicanes *and* it's made of concrete. Hardly notable, is it? Markb 13:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - although, as a San Franciscan, I'd like to keep articles about the city, this is just too obscure to get an entry. Lombard qualifies because it's famous; Vermont fails because it's not - even in SF. -- BPMullins | Talk 14:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as lacking sources to satisfy WP:ATT. Not all streets are inherently notable. Edison 14:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the Transportation section of Potrero Hill until article can be fully expanded. --Polaron | Talk 16:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless expanded to provide some evidence of notability by the end of this AfD, Dhartung et al may be right but at the moment the article doesn't mention any of these reasons. Iridescenti 16:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Lombardesque "crooked" block of Vermont Street is considered a hidden treasure of San Francisco that many tourists don't know about. There was even a segment on the television show "Bay Area Backroads," hosted by Doug McConnell, recently that specifically documented the twistiness of Vermont Street, where the host actually filmed a driven outing there. A bay area resident myself, I have heard time and time again how it could even be more crooked than Lombard Street. After reviewing Google Maps, it most certainly is at least AS CROOKED as Lombard Street, just in a lesser known part of town. There are many hills in San Fran, but only Lombard and Vermont offer the curved switchbacks. It deserves encyclopaedic documentation. --DirectorG 18:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Although I have entirely no idea what this street is, this article can be very potentially expanded in the near future. Entirely meets notability criteria, and can have some more expansion and sourcing.  V60 ^{VTalk · VDemolitions} 19:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Let's give this article a chance. Is it the second crookedest street in a city noted for having such? The article could be expanded, refs and sources added, and perhaps turn into a nice, useful article. It has already provided one little fact about SF which I didn't know before. At least it's a real street (see Google maps). Let's get rid of all the spam, hoaxes, and non-notable autobio articles first. --Seattle Skier (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I live on the other side of the world and I've heard of this. - Richard Cavell 22:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is clear room for improvement, but as it stands it meets notability criteria.--Xnuala (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that reliable sources have been added attesting to its notability as a tourist attraction. — Krimpet (talk/review) 01:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it is a notable street, as per Krimpet. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 17:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep now that reliable sources have been provided, if this is a famous tourist attraction I don't see any reason why we shouldn't be providing coverage for it. Burntsauce 17:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's just the point: it isn't a "famous tourist attraction", not even in the City. Lombard Street is. Seems like some folks have the cart before the horse here, maybe hoping that having a Wikipedia article will somehow catapult this street to the notoriety they think it deserves. It ain't supposed to work that way. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the standard in question is not "fame", but notability. It is already notable, as sources demonstrate. -- Dhartung | Talk 07:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One (of the two) sources, fodor's, also makes the claim: Everyone in the Western world knows that the "crookedest" street in the world is San Francisco's Lombard Street, which is clearly nonsense. So this leaves us with one reliable source - or is it? fodor's states there are 6 turns, sfgate.com claims 8. If this entry must stay, can someone find some reliable sources? Markb 13:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I pointed out before, the Images of America: San Francisco's Potrero Hill by Linenthal et al is a likely source. In fact, if someone has an Amazon account you can search the text online for Vermont street (I forgot my account info so I can't do this). See [1] RosinDebow 15:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: then add it as a source. Markb 05:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the fact that an article contains the phrase, "Everyone in the Western world knows that the "crookedest" street in the world is San Francisco's Lombard Street", is automatically nonsense. There's no rule that sources can't be written with a moderate amount of humour. -- Black Falcon 05:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Potrero Hill, San Francisco, California. That page, and Lombard Street, are the only links to the Vermont Street page. I don't think there's enough material to make an independent article about Vermont Street. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Potrero Hill, San Francisco, California. All things considered, how likely is that article ever likely to be more then a stub? I think the article should be left as a redirect to Potrero Hill, San Francisco, California. Vegaswikian 23:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung and the press release reference that I've added. -- Black Falcon 05:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.